Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Sort of, yes. Generally speaking, the better the confidence, the narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be.
Shouldn't that be the other way around, though?
The narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be [whatever that meant], the better the confidence?
And what "rubbish" would that be, Elduran? And as far as definitions go, please free to correct anything I say - (and I'll do the same).
My point stands: We Christians hold science up to a higher Standard than "scientists" themselves do.
Molal: "Define "kind"."
AV1611VET: "A 'kind', IMO, is an animal at the top of its taxon, containing maximum alleles."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Maximum alleles? What does that mean?"
AV1611VET: "Beats me."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Do you even know what alleles are?"
AV1611VET: "I absolutely do not - (for about the fifth time)."
Frumious Bandersnatch: "Which taxon would the animal be at the top of?"
AV1611VET: "I haven't a clue."
Does the accuracy change as the evidence "changes"?
For example, for years and years, people thought that F = G*m1*m2 / r² was an accurate formula for gravity. It turns it out it was pretty accurate, but not absolutely accurate.
Well, what you suggest is interesting; however, the conclusion can also be that breeding variations only happen through CREATIVE intervention, and not on its own under everyday circumstances. Left to themselves, creatures would simply procreate with any individual of their specie regardless of appearance and any variation would simply be recycled within the group.Livestock farming, it’s amazing how many breeds of sheep can be had by manipulating genetic variation, and all this in less than ten thousand years. Imagine if you can the differences that could be reached in 500,000 years or 50,000,000 years. The same story for other domesticated animals including cattle, pigs, goats, chickens and most defiantly dogs.
Shouldn't that be the other way around, though?
The narrower the range of realistic values that the "true" value might be [whatever that meant], the better the confidence?
Ah, no: 'natural selection' is the phenomenon whereby those individuals with mutations that make them more likely to procreate will procreate more than their competitors, and so those mutations will proliferate throughout the tribe. Its kinda obvious, really.Well, what you suggest is interesting; however, the conclusion can also be that breeding variations only happen through CREATIVE intervention, and not on its own under everyday circumstances. Left to themselves, creatures would simply procreate with any individual of their specie regardless of appearance and any variation would simply be recycled within the group.
My point stands: We Christians hold science up to a higher Standard than "scientists" themselves do.
Pathetic isn't it?You are a liar, at least regarding to how you (a christian) hold science.
Witness your own statement-
"The definition of kind"
Not "a" definition.
Not "my" definition.
Not "a guess" about Kind.
Not "Pure BS" about Kind
No----"THE Definition of Kind"
The one , the only definition of what a "kind" is.
And, within 2 posts of YOUR OP, you admitted that you couldn't even define your definition
So 'THE definition of kind' went to "NO definition of Kind" within an hour.
You lied regarding "THE" definition of kind. And you continue to disregard objective empirical evidence.
Like you have said "If ANYTHING- Language, objective empirical evidence, GOD HIMSELF- contradicts my personal interpretation of the 1611 KJV, then EVERYTHING is wrong" (highly paraphrased on my part, and satirized as well)
the cavemen on tv
But that assumes that it's a constant everywhere. It's not. The rate of acceleration due to gravity varies depending on the masses in question and the separation.
The narrower the spread of data the more confident we are of the mean of that data.
You lied regarding "THE" definition of kind. And you continue to disregard objective empirical evidence.
Pathetic isn't it?
Okie-doke!
How "mean" would data have to be, before someone can make a statement like this:
[bible]Acts 1:3[/bible]
I can make a statement like that if you would like a demo:
"I saw a dude get hit by a car and have his head removed clean off! Then he died! And then he got up and walked around looking for his head! It was cool! The guys body just meandered aimlessly around the interstate looking for his head, which was pretty surreal considering the head had the eyes! This went on for 154 days straight! But it's California so no one stopped him. Most people didn't even notice it."
OK, done and done!
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?